The M1 Carbine is as big as a rifle, if I'm going to limit performance I want something 1/3 the size.

I swear you guys would bitch and argue about free beer and super model pussy.

Yes but now frame that penetration desire in the context of your machine gun which was predecided will be in the same caliber as your service rifle.  I absolutely do want a bit of penetration of steel and cover with the MG.   The service rifle is just along for the ride as far as this requirement.  

Your MGs fired on troops, light vehicles, lightly armored vehicles and even on tanks to force them to button up.

The GPMG as a concept is dead, now. There are automatic rifles (M27, M249, Mk 46, Mk 48), LMGs (M249 and M240) and HMGs (M2, M3) and the services are actively looking at MGs in 338 Norma and 6.5 Creedmoor.

The Battle Rifle thing was a detour that we should not have taken.

That's a bold claim, we'll see how it plays out, and if it is substantially different from how this 6.8 Sig rifle adoption works.

FWIW the M240 is a GPMG, the M249 is an LMG

The whole point is that GPMGs aren't really a thing anymore. We don't use the M240 at the squad level, or for anti-air. It's a PLT level or mounted MG.

FWIW the M249 is an LMG when mounted to a vehicle or a tripod.

They are very much a thing and will continue to be for some time. The reason you think otherwise seems to be that you have your own definitions for what constitutes a GPMG, LMG, and automatic rifle compared to the rest of the world.

GPMGs most certainly are a thing.

OK, define the term.

AFAIK even the USMC and Army don't agree on the terms. The original term meant a single machine gun that did everything. But we obviously don't have that, given that we have a half dozen different MGs at this point for different roles.

Perhaps in the current vernacular I would be more accurate sticking to Medium MG not GP. (Terminology wise but in my day the M60 was a GPMG and it was a Medium Machine Gun.   The only ones that really disappeared after WW2 was the .30 cal Heavy MG, the water cooled M1917.   And the Navy Lewis guns probably all got replaced by updated M1919s but in 7.62,  guessing there.   Iirc some of the landing craft still had Lewis guns in WW2.

The Browning M1919, the M60, the M240 all filled the same role.  They are not dead quite yet. GPMG included Light and Medium MGs. edited, I don’t know why but when I typed that I was thinking the 1919 was a LMG on a bipod and stock when not on a tripod. .  It wasn’t, my bad   GpMGs are Air cooled belt feds.  

And they were not dead at the time of the M14 development program.   I am not sure why some folks slam the M14 when they talk about today’s weapons and much more modern developments.  One has to look at the developments in their day and time.  Otherwise it’s like busting on your grand pa for marrying a fat old woman that bakes pies.  Grandma wasn’t a fat old woman back in the day.

I brought up machine guns as in 1948 the plan was still the service rifle and machine guns would use the same cartridge.  There is more reason to lean heavier in capability when your ammo is doing both jobs. Adequate for the heavier task but a surplus of power for the service rifle.  The real miscalculation was thinking the full auto M14 was a BAR replacement in the squad.  Yea it was but it sucked in that role.

Once they realized how badly that sucked for the Automatic Rifleman is when the wheels began spinning to exit the whole M14 platform.

If I had to choose as an automatic rifleman between an M14 on auto or an M249 I’d go with the M249.  I was a M60 gunner and I could doing a reasonable walking fire with it that would be better than a M14 with box mags.   The M249 would be handier yet and I really don’t like the SAW.

Having a GPMG fielded has never precluded fielding LMGs, HMGs, or automatic rifles concurrently.

GPMGs are just that. Used for general purposes including platoon level light infantry, vehicles, aircraft, etc...

Infantry companies have 240s and 60s. Heavies and 81s reside in weapons company, who also has 240s to use on things like M1167s when not using TOWs

And you’re talking about today’s doctrine not the post WW2 era.  

Did I miss something thinking this thread was discussing the M14 development?

Some of this framing things in today’s doctrine is like saying we should have run with the F35 in 1948  ecause it’s makes sense today.


God damn, Geaorge Washington was tool for not going with the M4 carbine,....the retard!

You win. I'm not spending my Saturday night going through doctrine. Especially not to convince an officer from a branch that has fuck all to do with them.

Not really, the 60 was a squad MG. The 240 came around after the M249 supplanted it.

The original concept of a GPMG was an MG for squad, platoon and company roles. It was the MG 34 FWIW. 



The BAR was obsolete the minute the first MG34 rolled off the line. We tried pushing the 1919A6 out but it sucked. The M15/M14 as an AR was dumb in context, even at the time.

Fair enough. but as you can see from the M15/M60 discussion this stuff was being debated at the time, too.

The unit I served in had the M240, M249, Mk 19 and M2 so I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm aware of what rocketmen get. They stay on top of the HIMARS and 270s right?

Just the 240s. The rest are spread around for BOC, POC, and ALOC defense.

Hell yeah. You got it figured out, nothing I can interject here.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I figured out where the MGs go pretty early on.

You’re flat out wrong. The M60 was not just a squad machine gun.  It was not designed as just a squad machine gun. It was designed as a GENERAL PURPOSE. machine gun and one of the purposes was in the squad when the BAR and later the FA M14 went bye bye.  Edit, the M60 wasn’t intended to be a squad item, it got pushed down to that role when the FA M14 was not a success.  It was a weapons platoon weapon originally that got tasked out to platoons or squads.   That was in the Marines.  I won’t really state that was the layout in the army.  My only army infantry mos was  mortars in an armor unit.  

The M60 was a furtherance of the M1919 GPMG concept.  It didn’t go in to later tanks though, they had their own shitty .30 cal Mg.  It did go on to helicopters as door guns or as hard mounts on gun choppers.

Also the M1919 was a GPMG as the water cooled M1917 could not be.   Infantry, tank bow guns, air crew guns and more.  

The M60 was also obviously inspired by the German gun.  Too bad they didn’t more closely copy it!   My low wear M60e3 ran like a champ with live ammo.  Blanks were a joke though.  The old worn out VN era older M60s I used in the guard were ill maintained worn out wrecks until I went through them.  Replace the entire top cover with fresh pawls and springs, and all new springs everywhere else to boot and a new sear for dished out ones and they would run fairly well.  We kept them too long in service, that’s how things get a bad rap.

I may be getting old and fat but I did go U.S.M.C.s institute of higher Machine Gunnery Learning for socially deviant misfits to be burdened by carrying heavy things and carried a 3.75 GPA.  

Light MG, medium MG and GPMG are nebulous as an object can be in more than one category.

You're right, my point was that the M240 never even tried to be a squad MG (except in mech units I guess) because it's so big.



The 1919 was never a GPMG, not even close. The existence of the BAR and M1917 (which was used until well after WWII) is proof enough. They tried to make it into a SAW with the A6 but it sucked.  



My point with all this is that the GPMG was supposed to do everything, and now we have a half dozen MGs taking over in specific roles because it turns out that a 28 pound MG can't do everything as well as a specialized one for each role can.

After WWII the Army was really trying to replace everything with 2 weapons, the M14 and the M60. Fast forward to today and an infantry BN of the future will have M4s, M249s, M240s, M250s, M7s, Mk 19s, M2s and possibly more.

Again you’re wrong.  The M1919 was the start of the GPMG.  Just because it didn’t replace everything doesn’t mean it wasn’t developed intentionally to replace other guns and to serve where our existing guns could not do it.   The big fat water jacket guns were a nonstarter in aircraft and tanks, too heavy for planes and to susceptible to damage in a tank.  Hence the army/ army air force request to redesign the M1917 into an air cooled heavier barrel ( so it doesn’t need a water jacket),  to also be a mounted, coax, aircraft, anti aircraft gun.   It’s the GPMG before GPMGs were cool.

Air cooled MGs go back to the 1895 Colt.

You've got a take, I see where you're coming from, I don't quite agree, but there's logic there.

All three (AK, M1, STG) were designed as compact rifles firing an intermediate round.  All three are going to have dismal hit probability at 200 yds.  All three put .30 holes in people and not much else.

Of the three, the carbine is the best built and lightest by quite a bit.  Other than that (and ignoring the strange idea of what 50% is), in large picture practicality they are the same.

FWIW the G3 is derived from a CETME rifle that was originally prototyped in 30 Carbine.

Generally the squads had light MGs, your BARs, FA M14s , heavy barrelled M16s as AUtomatic Riflemen.  Of those only the BAR had a long life.  Probably longer than it should have.  That’s just it, doctrine can move slow or regress or stutter step like the automatic rifleman with a AR as that was tried more than once and the Marines went back to it.  

Crew served weapons were not squad or platoon weapons organically, they're attachments.   At least in my world and experience.  I wasn’t army infantry in the republic of VN, maybe their guns were organic.  I was in a weapons platoon and teams got attached to platoons and squads for a time span or a whole operation.

The GPMG, the M60 as I said wasn’t intended to replace the BAR.  The M14 with a happy switch (only the AR had a happy switch)  the rest of the squad did not.  He had a different stock (bandaid iirc to the controllability issue)  with a pistol grip and a lot more magazines and iirc an AG that also carried more ammo than a basic rifleman.   I may like the M14 but it was not a good gun on full auto, it was no BAR.   Not even close due to lack of weight for the rate of fire.

The doctrines were changing constantly before things were even settled.....often due to things working out.  Like being told to ditch the M14 for that plastic Air Force rifle by MacNamara.   That put a wrench in the ole doctrinal plans.  As an aside, imagine if the Armalite AR 10 in 7.62/Nato was chosen over the T44 test rifle.  Where would we have gone direction wise!!?

I think you get hung up on the GPMG as an absolute universal replacement to everything that was capable of automatic fire in the infantry.  It wasn’t.  
Hell even when we had replacements the old items would somehow show up,....like the M3 grease gun.   Our tankers had them in the mid nineties as they were reliable and compact bullet hoses for a tank.  An M4 is even bulky to try to use from inside a tank loader’s hatch.

Yes I have some opinions that influence my thoughts, with fuzzy memory and training recollections.

The Garand was designed in the late 20s

It depends on things like which country. The Germans never went down teh automatic rifle road, they went right to the MG34. The French, Brits and Americans all ended up with a 20-30 round magazine in a rifle cartridge.

What's wild is that we stuck with it into the 1960s and didn't break free until the M60 moved into the squad. It was too heavy, though, so the SAW came along.

Wow. Vltor CASV. That's something I haven't heard about in at least 15 years. Remember the AR version that allowed the lower handguard to be removed so you could mount a a M203? Would a AR equipped with Vltor stuff be considered retro now?

Enlisted in 2004 at the old age of 24, USMC.  When I reenlisted a few years later in late 2008 my MOS was one of the most sought after and as a Sgt (E5) my bonus was $74,500, the only MOS higher was EOD, $90k.  Even RECON and Staff NCO Infantry were both significantly lower.

Having said that, AR’s were not really a thing before I enlisted because of the AWB.  I was actually in Recruit Training (boot camp) when it expired.  When I reenlisted I bought a SOCOM16 because I still thought it to be a superior weapon system.  While it sounds cooler going into battery, in actuality, the M16/AR15 is superior due to its modularity.

I had to wait several months to get my rifle because I wanted the OD Green stock.  Of course when I ordered it was right after Obama was sworn in and prices got crazy, I paid $1400 and didn’t get the rifle until June.  Thankfully CMI was still producing 25rd mags and I bought several.

Currently it has an OD Green ProMag Archangel stock, VLTOR rail system and CompM4s red dot.

I’ve built many 556 AR’s and some 308 AR’s.  While I would take an AR over the SOCOM16 into combat, the M1A platform has a cool factor an AR will never have.

I did replace the oprod spring guide with the Sadlak version after 200rds because the Springfield Armory part bent.  It’s now been flawless for several thousand rounds.

They sort of did with the FG-42. 8mm Mauser under 10 lbs, automatic, and used a 20 round magazine.

The USMC sort of went back to the automatic rifle concept with the IAR, which Neller then decided would just replace the M-4.

Along with the shitty sights on the FAL & AK accuracy, my biggest bitch was the 18LB trigger pull.
I have to wonder if those singing the praises of the FAL have ever fired one side by side with an M1A.  


But but the M1A isn't a M14...
I have a GI surplus M14 trigger group in my M1A. I also have M14 iron sights on it.

The M14 is the "Best" rifle for bashing to create a false flag of controversy to garnish more viewership.

I wonder if they'll then go back to a beltfed once everyone has the iar lol.

This

Yep.



Pretty much every company commander, and probably about every infantry officer (at least in 2D MarDiv), was so resistant to giving up M249s for M27s that they ultimately relented and told the battalions that they could keep the M249s, but they were to be employed in the same manner as the M240s were. "Lol, sure thing Sir!"

IIRC this was around 2017 or so.

That’s a great question.  

I’ve mentioned it before but we had a composite element from 1/1 show up at work with three versions of the M27, and they were all heavy as fuck with one of three types of optics and a KAC NT-4 suppressor.  Yikes.  Even the platoon commander-a typically fit young infantry 1st Lt. of Marines-mentioned the weight and said he’d prefer to carry an M4.

What did the Marines get with the M27 that they didn’t have with the M4?  Same cartridge, and same magazine.  More weight.  Slightly longer barrel.  For what?

Better accuracy?  Ok I get it, but how much more of that accuracy is truly realized under field conditions while loaded down like a mule with ammo, water, body armor, etc. and worn out from strenuous physical exertion after humping the terrain in movement to contact or a long ass patrol?

As for the IAR, anything was a vast improvement over the M16A1 or M16A2 with a cheesy stamped clamp-on bipod that supposedly sufficed for making an automatic rifle out of a standard rifle for the fire team.  As an 0311 AR in my fire team, those things SUCKED and were hopelessly inaccurate in full auto at ANY range-even when fired in 3-4 rd bursts.  

The M249 was a much better weapon than what it replaced but if the USMC wasn’t happy with the SAW, the money spent on the IAR would probably have been better spent on a lighter weight version that would improve the mobility of those carrying it, rather than look back to the M1918A2 BAR-venerated as it was-as the answer.  I remember reading about the official requirement for the IAR in 2006 or so, and it needed to be usable by “x” percentile of female users.  I guess HQMC saw the writing on the wall IRT bringing females into the infantry (a really, really stupid idea embraced by our political leadership) and it was planned for longer than we were aware.  Point being, requirements for the IAR were generated with use by weaker humans baked in; the implication being that we sacrificed belt fed capability and substituted it for an inferior magazine fed weapon so that females in the fire team could carry and operate the FT’s AR.  I know that contradicts the official reasons for fielding the IAR but those requirements were right there written in black and white.

I just don’t see the M27 as a vast improvement over a standard M4 for the cost involved in fielding a heavier new rifle USMC wide.  In a long drawn out, high intensity campaign with significant casualties, I would think interoperability with the sister services will be unnecessarily more complicated as industry is stressed to keep up with supporting USMC-only M27 rifles and replacement parts FMF wide.

None of this is intended to disrespect retired CWO5 Wade.  He was instrumental in fielding the M27 and used to post here.  I always enjoyed reading what he had to say about the M4 and development of the IAR regardless of my criticism of the m27 as a standard rifle and in the AR role.

I didn't realize Gunner Wade was a member here, IIRC he was the driving force behind getting PMags which was very popular with everyone who wasn't a Supply Officer.

The main thing I liked about the M27 was it had FA instead of burst.

of course!  beltfeds rule!  

In 87 at SOI we got to play with M249s, early ones the Marines got from the army used.  Already having been trained on heavier stuff I was underwhelmed and they were jammamatic when used with an AR mag.  Beltfed they ran.  As a fire team and squad’s base of fire they rock.  Not sure I’d want one in house clearing.  Personally I wonder about the M16 based automatic rifleman again.  It seems a step backward.  is it the cost per unit?


I can see the back an forth on the 5.56 belted vs box fed AR rifle.  Each has their strong points and minuses,  if only you could carry a golf bag of equipment without the weight penalty and select a club for the job.
a try
I never carried a saw afield other than a single familiarization range day.   I carried an M60e3, M9, or a M16a2, then over to the guard and I had a 1911 or an A1 depending on position in the team.    As an MP I had a 1911 and an updated mutt A1.  I think I had a 203 once as a MP team leader.  I hated it.  As an experienced M60 guy I always got our M60 as an MP if we dragged them out.   I usually ran the MG range line when my guard units shot them.  I wasn’t senior man but the Captain deferred to me and let me cannibalize the other company’s’ junk in to working guns to get through the day.  I had already squared away our company gear.

I was hoping an army infantry guy would square me away as to if the M60s were organic to their platoons/squads back in their hey day. and later time frames.  I suspect they may be.  A marine machine gunner is a seperate MOS, switching to the Army as I did I was already qualified in their 11 series as all my training on that MOS (11c mortarman) was OJT but I knew 11b covered riflemen and army machine gunners under one MOS. Being school trained on MGs in the Marines was certainly better I would think than someone telling you, “hey you new Jack, you’re the sixty gunner. “


The platoon and squad make up of both the army and marines has changed back and forth through the years, mostly Fn with the number of fireteams or even the size of them.....especially when stuffing infantry in to Mech Infantry spam cans and having them balance out.

I haven’t seen him post here in many years but he seems like a really good fellow and his insight and experience was informative.  

What’s the role of the Mk48?

Nah, M1 Carbine.

Remember the lost art of machine gunnery thread?
I remember the lost art of machine gunnery thread.

The M60 was old before you showed up. It was in service for 25 years before the M249 was adopted.